Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and I wish to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this bill that I have just sent to the desk, in my view, gives us a chance in this Congress to grasp a historic opportunity to make a real difference for the American people for generations to come. Most Americans can name various geologic treasures and places of wonder within our land. Places like Diamond Head in Hawaii, the Sawtooth Mountains in Idaho, the Grand Canyon in Arizona, and Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado readily come to mind because our people have access to them. However, there is a place in New Mexico that rivals these areas in splendor and yet, few people know about, or fully appreciate its significance. It is called the Valles Caldera. The Valles Caldera is one of the world's greatest volcanic features. A large circular crater 12-15 miles in diameter, the views from the rim are awe inspiring. As one looks across the vast green valleys and mountains that now sit within the ring of the caldera, and realizes that they are all merely the cooled workings of a resurgent lava dome, one is struck by the sheer magnitude of the natural forces that created the Jemez Mountains in north central New Mexico. The explosions that created the caldera, some 1.2 million years ago, ejected over 100 cubic miles of earth, rock, and lava. It is estimated that if the original mountain had come to a peak that it would have been taller than Mount Everest. However very few people, even in New Mexico, have ever been on this land. Since 1860, it has been in private ownership. At that time it was granted by the United States to the heirs of Don Luis Maria Cabeza de Vaca as part of a settlement of Spanish land grant claims under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and has since been known as the Baca Land & Cattle Company. It has passed through several owners since 1860, and about once in a generation the United States has tried to purchase the land. The first time was in the 1930's. Again, in the 1960's the late former Senator from New Mexico, Clinton P. Anderson tried to negotiate a deal for the land. Finally in 1980, the owner of the land, James ``Pat'' Dunigan, was in negotiations with the Government to sell the land when he died a premature death. Now, his family has come forward and said they would like to fulfill his dream of seeing this land move into public ownership. Mr. President, this is an opportunity that we cannot let pass us by. In 1993, the Forest Service completed a study of this land which lays out the tremendous value it could have within public ownership: First, the Valles Caldera is the classic example of a resurgent lava dome. The study of its features has helped geologists to understand volcanic processes throughout the world; Second, the recreation potential is enormous. Hiking, camping, cross- country skiing, photography, horse back riding, hunting, and fishing are obvious possibilities. The headwaters of the Jemez and San Antonio rivers are located on this land, and represent some of the best trout fishing streams in New Mexico. There are nearly 27 miles of trout streams on the ranch, most of which meander through grass meadows perfect for fly fishing. Also over 6,000 elk live on this land, making it ideal for hunting. Perhaps the most unique features of this land are the seven enormous open grassland valleys that are tailor made for horseback riding. Third, finally, and perhaps most important, this land has been well preserved. Through careful management of their grazing land, selective timbering, and the use of proscribed fire, the current owners have maintained the caldera as an ecological jewel. With over 65,000 acres of conifer forests mixed with aspen, gamble oak, and broken rock known as felsenmeer, and 30,000 acres of lush grasslands, the Caldera supports an abundance of wildlife, including black bears and cougars. Mr. President, words are a poor substitute for seeing this land, and although pictures cannot convey its grandeur, they may provide my colleagues with a sense of it: First, to give people a sense of location, here is a map of north central New Mexico. To the south is Albuquerque and then Santa Fe above it. You'll notice that the Baca Ranch is nestled between the Santa Fe National Forest, and Bandelier National Monument, which many members of the public have visited. Second, here is a satellite photo of the volcano. The black outline represents the Baca Ranch, approximately 95,000 acres. For perspective, on the right side of this photo is Los Alamos, NM, and just below it is the Bandelier National Monument. This large yellow spot on the bottom right corner of the caldera rim is known as the Valle Grande. It is the only part of the Ranch that most people have seen because state highway 4 comes through on the side, but it is only one of seven valleys on the property. Third, here's a picture of the Valle Grande, it's about 4 miles wide and 6 miles long covering over 17,000 acres. Fourth, and here is the upper Jemez river which originates and meanders through the Valle Grande. Fifth, finally, here is a picture of the Valle Toledo the third largest valley on the property, about 4,000 acres. Mr. President, the legislation I'm introducing today does two things: it gives the Forest Service the authority to start negotiating for the purchase of this land in good faith by authorizing appropriations, land exchanges, and the acceptance of donations; and it rationalizes the boundaries between the Santa Fe National Forest and Bandelier National Monument for consistent management of their respective watersheds. Acquiring land of this quality and magnitude will not be cheap or easy. It will take a lot of work on the part of this body and our counterparts on the House, and on the part of the administration. However, if we don't close this deal this time, I'm not sure the American people will ever forgive us. Although the Dunigan's have been great stewards of the land, they want to sell it. Who knows how future owners may use this land. When Senator Anderson tried to acquire this land for the United States 35 years ago, we could have bought this land for less than $5 million. Now the costs will be much much greater, and if it is ever subdivided, the costs will go up exponentially. Mr. President, I know that many people will want to argue about the management of this land. There are many, many uses that this land could be put to, but I would caution my colleagues that now is not the time to argue over future use. Let's worry about how we will acquire the land first. Management options can be worked out later. I think it will take additional time before a full management plan can be put in place for the property. It would be an exercise in futility for us to try to work all of that out before we move to take advantage of this historic opportunity. Mr. President, I understand that there is support for this effort to bring this property into public ownership by others in the delegation. I very much want to work with them and with people in the administration to see this happen. It is a very important initiative and a very important goal for us to pursue in the second session of this Congress. So I hope very much that we can make progress on it.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this bill that I have just sent to the desk, in my view, gives us a chance in this Congress to grasp a historic opportunity to make a real difference for the American people for generations to come. Most Americans can name various geologic treasures and places of wonder within our land. Places like Diamond Head in Hawaii, the Sawtooth Mountains in Idaho, the Grand Canyon in Arizona, and Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado readily come to mind because our people have access to them. However, there is a place in New Mexico that rivals these areas in splendor and yet, few people know about, or fully appreciate its significance. It is called the Valles Caldera. The Valles Caldera is one of the world's greatest volcanic features. A large circular crater 12-15 miles in diameter, the views from the rim are awe inspiring. As one looks across the vast green valleys and mountains that now sit within the ring of the caldera, and realizes that they are all merely the cooled workings of a resurgent lava dome, one is struck by the sheer magnitude of the natural forces that created the Jemez Mountains in north central New Mexico. The explosions that created the caldera, some 1.2 million years ago, ejected over 100 cubic miles of earth, rock, and lava. It is estimated that if the original mountain had come to a peak that it would have been taller than Mount Everest. However very few people, even in New Mexico, have ever been on this land. Since 1860, it has been in private ownership. At that time it was granted by the United States to the heirs of Don Luis Maria Cabeza de Vaca as part of a settlement of Spanish land grant claims under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and has since been known as the Baca Land & Cattle Company. It has passed through several owners since 1860, and about once in a generation the United States has tried to purchase the land. The first time was in the 1930's. Again, in the 1960's the late former Senator from New Mexico, Clinton P. Anderson tried to negotiate a deal for the land. Finally in 1980, the owner of the land, James ``Pat'' Dunigan, was in negotiations with the Government to sell the land when he died a premature death. Now, his family has come forward and said they would like to fulfill his dream of seeing this land move into public ownership. Mr. President, this is an opportunity that we cannot let pass us by. In 1993, the Forest Service completed a study of this land which lays out the tremendous value it could have within public ownership: First, the Valles Caldera is the classic example of a resurgent lava dome. The study of its features has helped geologists to understand volcanic processes throughout the world; Second, the recreation potential is enormous. Hiking, camping, cross- country skiing, photography, horse back riding, hunting, and fishing are obvious possibilities. The headwaters of the Jemez and San Antonio rivers are located on this land, and represent some of the best trout fishing streams in New Mexico. There are nearly 27 miles of trout streams on the ranch, most of which meander through grass meadows perfect for fly fishing. Also over 6,000 elk live on this land, making it ideal for hunting. Perhaps the most unique features of this land are the seven enormous open grassland valleys that are tailor made for horseback riding. Third, finally, and perhaps most important, this land has been well preserved. Through careful management of their grazing land, selective timbering, and the use of proscribed fire, the current owners have maintained the caldera as an ecological jewel. With over 65,000 acres of conifer forests mixed with aspen, gamble oak, and broken rock known as felsenmeer, and 30,000 acres of lush grasslands, the Caldera supports an abundance of wildlife, including black bears and cougars. Mr. President, words are a poor substitute for seeing this land, and although pictures cannot convey its grandeur, they may provide my colleagues with a sense of it: First, to give people a sense of location, here is a map of north central New Mexico. To the south is Albuquerque and then Santa Fe above it. You'll notice that the Baca Ranch is nestled between the Santa Fe National Forest, and Bandelier National Monument, which many members of the public have visited. Second, here is a satellite photo of the volcano. The black outline represents the Baca Ranch, approximately 95,000 acres. For perspective, on the right side of this photo is Los Alamos, NM, and just below it is the Bandelier National Monument. This large yellow spot on the bottom right corner of the caldera rim is known as the Valle Grande. It is the only part of the Ranch that most people have seen because state highway 4 comes through on the side, but it is only one of seven valleys on the property. Third, here's a picture of the Valle Grande, it's about 4 miles wide and 6 miles long covering over 17,000 acres. Fourth, and here is the upper Jemez river which originates and meanders through the Valle Grande. Fifth, finally, here is a picture of the Valle Toledo the third largest valley on the property, about 4,000 acres. Mr. President, the legislation I'm introducing today does two things: it gives the Forest Service the authority to start negotiating for the purchase of this land in good faith by authorizing appropriations, land exchanges, and the acceptance of donations; and it rationalizes the boundaries between the Santa Fe National Forest and Bandelier National Monument for consistent management of their respective watersheds. Acquiring land of this quality and magnitude will not be cheap or easy. It will take a lot of work on the part of this body and our counterparts on the House, and on the part of the administration. However, if we don't close this deal this time, I'm not sure the American people will ever forgive us. Although the Dunigan's have been great stewards of the land, they want to sell it. Who knows how future owners may use this land. When Senator Anderson tried to acquire this land for the United States 35 years ago, we could have bought this land for less than $5 million. Now the costs will be much much greater, and if it is ever subdivided, the costs will go up exponentially. Mr. President, I know that many people will want to argue about the management of this land. There are many, many uses that this land could be put to, but I would caution my colleagues that now is not the time to argue over future use. Let's worry about how we will acquire the land first. Management options can be worked out later. I think it will take additional time before a full management plan can be put in place for the property. It would be an exercise in futility for us to try to work all of that out before we move to take advantage of this historic opportunity. Mr. President, I understand that there is support for this effort to bring this property into public ownership by others in the delegation. I very much want to work with them and with people in the administration to see this happen. It is a very important initiative and a very important goal for us to pursue in the second session of this Congress. So I hope very much that we can make progress on it.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment that we are offering would avoid further sales of petroleum from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It accomplishes this goal by providing alternative sources of funding for the Interior bill to replace the planned sale of $207.5 million that is now in the bill as reported by the Appropriations Committee. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was established under the Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1975. It is our Nation's primary insurance policy against market chaos if there is an international oil supply disruption. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act and Strategic Petroleum Reserve were authorized earlier this year in the Senate by unanimous consent. For the past several years, the Interior Appropriations Act has included sales of the oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as an offset to Federal spending in that bill. I recognize that such sales have been proposed in the past by the administration, that they have been undertaken reluctantly by the Appropriations Committee. But depleting the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, even to fund the worthy programs in this bill now before the Senate is an unwise policy. In hearings before the Senate Energy Committee earlier this year, we had several distinguished experts on world oil markets and on the Middle East repeatedly emphasizing the fragility of the current political situation in the major oil-producing regions outside of the United States. We have no assurance that the near future might not bring unwelcome political changes that would result in a reduction in the world's energy security. While the United States itself does not import an overwhelming fraction from the Middle East, the world oil market is highly integrated, and shortages anywhere quickly translate into higher prices at the pump here in the United States. In this context, annual sales of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve amount to a piecemeal cancellation of our national energy insurance policy. Moreover, our sales from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve have been cited by other countries as justification for selling off their oil reserves to offset short-term spending needs that they themselves have. We saw this happen in Germany earlier this year when they sold oil from their strategic reserves to raise the extra revenue needed to bring their budgets within the guidelines contained in the Maastricht Treaty. Sales of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve have negative short-term impacts for ordinary Americans, in addition to these longer term threats to our Nation as a whole. Whenever the Federal Government dumps $200 million of oil on the market, it delivers a sucker punch to the independent oil and gas producers who are operating on the margin of profitability. Our independent producing sector is an important part of the oil supply equation in the United States. The oil and gas industry is the second largest industry in my State of New Mexico. If there is a way to avoid inflicting these economic losses on these mom- and-pop operations that characterize a good deal of our domestic industry, we need to do that. In this context, I will note that my efforts and those of my cosponsor have been strongly endorsed by the Independent Petroleum Association of America, by the National Stripper Well Association and by the American Petroleum Institute. Fortunately, we found a way to avoid sales of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in this bill without cutting $200 million of funding for programs that affect Indian tribes, energy conservation, national parks, research and development, the arts, and the other vital subjects covered by the bill. Pursuant to the Defense Authorization Act of 1996, the Secretary of Energy is required to sell the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve. It now appears that the Secretary will receive more for Elk Hills than is accounted for in the balanced budget agreement. The amendment I am offering today takes these excess proceeds, uses them as a funding source in place of oil sales from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We will not know the exact amount of the excess proceeds until January of 1998 when the administration sends the Congress a final proposal to sell Elk Hills under the 31-day notice- and-wait provision contained in the law that authorizes that sale. The possibility exists, though, that we could capture enough funds through this amendment to obviate the need to sell oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve next year and potentially beyond. This coupling will certainly be a consideration in my judgment as to whether it is a good idea for Congress to allow the sale of Elk Hills to go forward. This amendment is intended as a positive step to meet the needs being addressed by the Interior bill by tapping an alternative source of funds instead of sales from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Stopping SPR sales as a source of general revenue is a good national economic policy. It is good for our domestic oil and gas industry, and particularly for the most vulnerable independent producers of oil and gas in my State and other petroleum-producing States. I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending committee amendment be set aside, and on behalf of myself and Senator Murkowski I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to make a few points. The first point is, I did speak to Secretary of Energy, Federico Pena, in the last hour. He has authorized me to indicate to all Senators that he strongly supports the amendment that Senator Murkowski and I are offering, and he believes it is a good public policy and a policy that we ought to adopt here. I also want to indicate a particular appreciation to Bob Simon on my staff, who is the person who has done all the work in coming up with this proposal. I also ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section explanation of the amendment be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains if there is time allocated on my side on this issue?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes also in support of the National Endowment for the Arts and a strong Federal role in supporting the arts. I am honored to follow the eloquent Senator from Iowa. I think he has made a very strong case for continued Federal support in this area. I also believe the Senator from Utah, Senator Bennett, made a very eloquent statement in support of the NEA and demonstrated great common sense in much of what he said there. Over the past few days, several of my colleagues have attacked the NEA, and one of the attacks has been that NEA funds are concentrated too much in big cities--six big cities in particular. I want to make it clear at the beginning of my comments that none of those big cities are in New Mexico, but still the NEA does support a very wide spectrum of arts in my State of New Mexico. NEA funds come to my State and support everything from opera to cowboy poets. In my hometown of Silver City where I grew up, we have an annual event where cowboy poets come from all over the country to participate. It is my understanding--and I can be corrected on this-- but it is my understanding that the first cowboy poetry convention or conference that occurred in this country was in Elko, NV, and was sponsored by the NEA. And they have continued with that tradition in Elko, NV, ever since. So clearly the funds go to a broad range of arts. There have been more than 20 national competitive grants in my State in 1996. NEA National Heritage awards have gone to individuals in my State. NEA has supported the arts in education strongly in my State. This year, the NEA provided the New Mexico State arts agency with a $380,000 block grant. So some of the Federal funds that come from the NEA do come in block grant form so that the State can make the judgment. Those funds are matched on a 2-to-1 basis with State funding. They enable our State agency to make 125 awards, both small awards and large awards. NEA's goal is to support the arts that enrich the lives of everyone in our country. I have seen that in my own State of New Mexico over the 14, 15 years that I have served here in the Senate, Mr. President. I have seen arts councils established and grow in virtually every community in New Mexico. There was a time in my State when the arts were essentially Santa Fe and Taos. If you started talking about the arts, whether they were paintings or chamber music or the opera or any of a variety of arts, you talked about Santa Fe and Taos. But that is no longer true in my home State of New Mexico. At the present time in New Mexico there is an arts council in virtually every community, every community of any size in the State. And those arts councils are bringing into those communities artists who contribute a tremendous amount to the lives of the people who live there. I am very proud of the rich tradition of arts that we have in my State and in the Southwest in general. New Mexico has a wealth of artists and musicians, museums and arts centers. NEA support over the last several years has strengthened the arts and strengthened arts education in New Mexico in very important ways. It has benefited the children in my State. Research has shown that art and music education is extremely important to the development, the proper development of a child. Healthy brain development in very young children is aided by arts education and by exposure to art and to music. Problem-solving skills are enhanced. There is improvement even on math tests as a result of exposure to music. That has been demonstrated in various tests in recent years. I recently attended a program in Albuquerque which was inspirational. It was called ``Starts with the Arts.'' It was a conference for children with exceptional needs at the Very Special Arts Center in Albuquerque. Clearly, this is making a great contribution to the lives of those children. In 1997, $90,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts came through our State arts agency to assist with that type of program. This has benefited not only children, young children, but it benefits students, programs like the Working Classroom in Albuquerque. This is a free year-round art and theater instruction program in the Broadway section of Albuquerque in southeast Albuquerque. Disadvantaged, at-risk children starting in their early teenage years participate in this. There is reduced dropout rates as a result of this work. There is substantial beautification of some areas of downtown Albuquerque through the painting of murals. That program has been supported by NEA funding as well. In 1997, they received $15,000 from the NEA through a State block grant. So the decision was made by the State to put that money into the Working Classroom Program, but it was funding that came through the National Endowment for the Arts. There have been benefits to many of the communities in our State, as I indicated, that not only benefits to the cultural lives of those communities but also to tourism, to economic development, to job creation. Mr. President, I do not have exact figures to provide to the Senate today, but I can tell you that the arts are a substantial part of the reason why tourists come to my State. Whatever we do to strengthen the arts also strengthens our economy and helps to strengthen the economy of all those communities. It benefits a wide audience. We benefit a wide audience by giving recognition to local artists, artists such as Ramon Jose Lopez, who is a santero and is a master metalsmith. He won an NEA National Heritage Fellowship last year. He was involved with the Smithsonian Institution in an exhibit that attracted national attention. And this type of recognition enriches the lives of many of our artists and of visitors that come to our State. I fought very hard in the last Congress to maintain the program of heritage grants to outstanding individuals. But despite all these benefits that I have gone through here we have Members of Congress, Members of the Senate, who continue to campaign to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts. I believe we need to resist that. We need to also resist turning this into a block grant program. On July 23 of this year the Labor Committee marked up and passed the NEA's reauthorization. Even though the measure has not come to the Senate floor, people here in the Senate need to know the outcome of the committee's deliberations. Like most of us in the committee, I concluded that the NEA now strikes the right balance, the right balance between national involvement, State and local involvement. NEA has been criticized as inefficient. But under the leadership of its present chairman, the NEA has established numerous accountability and streamlining measures that ensure responsible use of Federal funds--consolidating administrative operations of the NEA and the NEH, the National Endowment for the Humanities; reducing administrative costs of both. There are peer review panels that are chosen from all sections of the country under this language that we adopted in this reauthorization bill. We ensured that all sections of the country would be represented. We ensured also that on the peer review panels that no State would be unduly represented. Some groups continue to spread what I believe are misrepresentations about NEA support for obscene art projects. Most of those stories turn out to be half-stories. Many of those stories involve subgranting of NEA dollars for objectionable projects. It is my understanding that the chairman, the present chairman of the NEA, has eliminated the practice of subgranting NEA awards except to State arts councils. I am convinced that the arts and arts education contribute enormously to the cultural life of our country. I strongly believe we should maintain it. I had the good fortune, Mr. President, last night to attend a reception and dinner at the Library of Congress and to see there the program that they have developed and put on the Internet for anyone in this country to dial up who wants to dial up Thomas--``www.Thomas.org'' I believe is how. But you can get into Thomas. And when you do, you can get access to all of the photographs that were taken in this country during the 1930's under the Federal Writers Project which was part of the Works Progress Administration, the WPA, at that time. That was money well spent. We are not here through the NEA having the Government choose who to support and who not to support. That is done by peer review panels. But I think it is anomalous to suggest that the Federal Government has no interest in this issue or to suggest that Federal Government should not be able to lend its support to a richer cultural life for this country. So I very much hope that we will resist all efforts to eliminate the NEA and to drastically change its structure.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, Helen Keller, the moving spirit for the American Foundation for the Blind and many in the visually handicapped community, once said, ``. . . when I hold a beloved [braille] book in my hand my limitations fall from me, my spirit is free.'' During the recent reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act it was my pleasure to work with the American Foundation for the Blind, the National Federation of the Blind, the American Council of the Blind, and other groups to include a provision for the teaching of braille for all blind or visually impaired students for whom it is appropriate as part of the IEP process. Because of this change which is now in law, every blind or visually impaired child will soon have the chance to experience the same freedom enjoyed by Helen Keller. Most children who are blind or visually impaired benefit from specialized instruction in braille to enable them to participate equally with their sighted peers in school and ultimately to compete in the workplace. Additionally, for those who cannot use print, braille provides an excellent means for reading confidential information, making notes at meetings and giving presentations, recordkeeping, labeling information files, performing household management functions, and ease of studying and reviewing critical information. Over 57,000 students, as of 1996, were registered with the American Printing House for the Blind and over 500 students from New Mexico are registered. Mr. President, I am pleased to report that in my State, 2,500 braille books were circulated by the New Mexico State Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, the Regional Library for the Blind in Santa Fe, in fiscal year 1996. The mission of the American Foundation for the Blind is to enable persons who are blind or visually impaired to achieve equality of access and opportunity that will ensure freedom of choice in their lives. I am delighted that the braille provisions of the recently reauthorized Individuals With Disabilities Education Act will help all children who are blind or visually impaired to achieve this goal.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wanted to speak for a few minutes here on the subject of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. My distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, spoke about it this week. He, of course, is the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee which is one of the key committees with responsibility over this subject matter. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, as I understand it, is intended to be sent by the administration to the Senate in the very near future. And I want to just reemphasize some of the points that Senator Biden made, and highlight the importance of the treaty to our national security and international peace. In the wake of the cold war, our world remains a very dangerous place in which to live. When the United States and the Soviet Union were still aiming thousands of nuclear warheads at each other during the cold war, all of us understood the danger that existed--perhaps only a half an hour away. But with the fall of international communism, the world breathed a huge sigh of relief, and hoped that we could move into a postnuclear age. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is a major part of the hope and a major part of what needs to be done in order to move into that postnuclear age. No greater threat to our national security or international peace exists than the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The potential damage that such weapons could do remains no less a threat than the one that we feared during the cold war. Think for a moment about the possibility of terrorists armed with nuclear weapons having been in the Tokyo subway instead of terrorists there with nerve gas. Think of the possibility of terrorists having been in Oklahoma City with a small nuclear weapon instead of with the weapon that was there. Perhaps my colleagues have read recent reports about the suitcase-sized nuclear weapons being unaccounted for in Russia. Whether these reports are true or not I recently had the chance to visit Russia and observe a model of the nuclear weapons that existed there; the size of artillery shells. And I am told that is also a weapon that we have had in our own inventory at various times. Such miniature nuclear weapons are indeed, feasible. They pose a realistic threat to the post-cold war world in which we live. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is a critical element in the spectrum of policies and actions that we need to take to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons of whatever size--prevent the spread of them to rogue nations, to terrorist organizations, to individuals bent on some type of irrational destructive behavior. For countries that have no nuclear weapons, it is impossible for them to develop nuclear weapons and be confident that they will work without being able to test them. Senator Biden recently stated that the proof of this belief is manifested by the current reluctance of Pakistan and India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. These nations currently prefer to be able to test their weapons in order to ensure that they work--thereby demonstrating their nuclear capability and supporting their foreign policy goals. The danger of a nuclear conflict between these two nations and the potential impact such a war could have on the entire planet should be very clear to everyone who serves here in the Senate. But India and Pakistan, and other potential nuclear powers, will not step back from the nuclear brink if the United States and the other nuclear powers do not take convincing steps toward controlling, reducing, and eliminating nuclear weapons through arms control treaties, specifically through the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The recent seismic event that occurred off the coast of northern Russia reminds us of how important it is for the Senate to ratify and for the world to implement this test ban treaty. In this case the experts disagree among themselves about the exact nature of the event. Article IV of the treaty will ensure that we could take steps to clarify whether or not that incident was a nuclear explosion or an underground earthquake. But, without the treaty, the experts will continue to massage the data in search for definitive answers. With the treaty, we could observe some answers directly through on-site inspection. Without the treaty, potential nuclear powers might well conclude that today's superpowers are ignoring their promises to discontinue nuclear testing--that, therefore, license exists for these nonnuclear powers who have the ambition to become nuclear powers to proceed on their own path toward development of nuclear weapons with impunity. If we put this treaty in place, those same potential nuclear powers would recognize that current nuclear powers should be held accountable for their promises not to test nuclear weapons. With the treaty in place, they would know that the commitment of today's nuclear powers to nonproliferation was a genuine commitment and one that we would abide by. It serves the peaceful interests of the United States and the peaceful interests of countries throughout the world to take this important step to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and eliminate nuclear testing. At the same time it serves the security interests of this Nation to ensure that our nuclear weapons remain a viable deterrent force. The science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program that we have in place today as part of our defense strategy is the means by which the United States can achieve this dual goal--the goal of a comprehensive test ban to ensure nonproliferation, and also a reliable nuclear deterrent force, should we ever need such weapons in the future. I will be working hard, and I urge all my colleagues in the Senate both to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to ensure that the Stockpile Stewardship Program is fully funded and implemented. The Nation's prospects for a peaceful world and our national security demand that we move ahead on world fronts. I urge my colleagues to examine these and other important issues surrounding the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty very carefully during the coming months. I hope that we can have this treaty presented to the Senate in the next few weeks. I hope that we can begin the hearing process this fall. I hope that early next year we can act favorably upon it. I have written a letter to the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee requesting that we hold hearings on this Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty at our earliest opportunity--hopefully, before we adjourn this fall. I look forward to that debate. I am confident that the Senate will choose to ratify the treaty since it is so much in our national interest to do so and in the interests of world peace, once we have all the facts. Mr. President, I think it is essential that we spend some of our valuable time between now and final adjournment this fall focused on this treaty so that we can understand those facts and act responsibly on this matter. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 additional minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I wanted to speak first today about this Gorton amendment that we adopted yesterday as part of the Labor and Human Services appropriation measure. The Senate approved that amendment by a narrow vote of 51 to 49. And the effect of the amendment is to convert billions of dollars in Federal education funds into unrestricted block grants that go to school districts, and with very few restrictions or accountability for how the funding is spent. I think the amendment is extremely far- reaching, and it was a mistake by the Senate to go along with this amendment. I hope very much that, in the final analysis in the conference, we can drop the amendment and send to the President a bill that keeps intact the various programs that many of us have worked for on both the Democratic and Republican side of the aisle for many years. Let me just say, putting it in its baldest terms, that this amendment would eliminate much of the U.S. Department of Education. That is a radical and a misguided effort, which does not have strong public support. This is an issue that was discussed in the last Presidential campaign. It became clear, I believe, during the course of that campaign and in the polling that was done throughout the campaign and since, that the American public does not favor elimination of the Department of Education, either in a formal way or by the gutting of the Department through an amendment such as this. I have fundamental problems with the notion that there is no national interest in helping parents and schools and students to compete in the world economy. What we are saying is that the local schools in every part of this country can figure out how to prepare their students to compete in the international marketplace if they have no help from outside. I disagree with that. It is not realistic to expect a local school board to have at its disposal the resources and expertise that we can develop at the national level and provide as assistance in the educational process. So there is an honest disagreement here about whether we as a nation can step up to this responsibility and assist States and local school districts, or whether we need to stay completely out of it. I feel very much that we need to provide assistance and expertise where we can. The Secretary of Education, in a quotation in the morning paper, says very clearly--this is Secretary Riley in the Washington Post: Secretary Riley warned that the Senate's action, which he called a ``back-door attempt to kill the Department of Education'' would abolish many vital programs for students, including Clinton's Goals 2000 grants for school reform. Madam President, when you look at the roughly $12.5 billion in annual funding for Federal education programs that would go into block grants under this amendment, you see how broad-based this amendment is. Let me just go through the list so the people know what we are talking about here. First of all, there is the Goals 2000 program that, of course, has been somewhat controversial, but has been a great benefit to many school districts in my State. I go to school district after school district as I travel around New Mexico and talk to those school district administrators and teachers and students about the Goals 2000 program. I find good support for it. I think they appreciate the funding they have received and the assistance that the Federal Government provides. So it would be eliminated. The School-to-Work Program. The education funds involved in the School-to-Work Program--not the Department of Labor funds, but the Education Department funds--would be eliminated. Education technology. This has been a concern of mine and of many Senators for many years now as to how do we get additional resources to our schools and to our school districts so that they can put in place the various purchasing of hardware and software and training of teachers that is necessary for them to turn out a technologically literate group of graduates at the end of the high school experience. Star Schools Program, the regional technology education consortia, the telecommunications demonstration programs that are in place around the country, the challenge grants for technology innovation, technology literacy challenge fund--all of these are specific initiatives that have benefited my State significantly. I think it would be a major error for us to eliminate the Federal funds. Some will say we are not eliminating Federal funds, we are giving a block grant to the school districts and if they want to spend them on this, they can. The unfortunate reality is that a local school district is under tremendous pressure. The school board members in my State are elected, as they are throughout most of the country. They are under tremendous pressure at the local level to raise salaries, raise salaries for school administrators, to build additional facilities, and to do a whole range of things. If we want funds to go to improve technological literacy and provide educational technology for our schools, we have to specify that is what the money goes for. Otherwise, the reality is that it will be spent for other purposes. So this Gorton amendment eliminates any requirement that any funds be spent for this purpose. I think that would be a major mistake. In my own State, we have received, this year, about $1.7 million in Federal funds for educational technology. We are expected, this next year, to receive $3.5 million in funds. The total, nationwide, is $425 million. I think this is money well spent. It is cost-effective. It is a cost- effective way for the taxpayers to try to assist in improving education at the local level. Let me go through some of the others that are covered here. The Eisenhower professional development State grants. These are funds that go to assist teachers in getting additional training so that they can better teach and remain in the profession of teaching. The innovative education program strategies under title 6. The safe and drug-free schools program. Again, in my State, I have gone to many schools and they have been extremely appreciative that the safe and drug-free schools program has allowed them to hire counselors to work at the middle school level, so that when students are beginning to get into difficulties with drugs or beginning to lose interest in school and become truant, they can have counselors there to be an early prevention device to keep those students involved. That safe and drug-free schools money would be eliminated under this amendment. The magnet schools assistance. That, again, has been very helpful in many school districts around the country. Education for homeless children and youth. Women's educational equity funding. Education for native Hawaiians. Alaska Native education equity funding. Charter schools funding. Funding for Indian education. All of these are specific programs that will not be funded if this amendment prevails. So, clearly, I think we have a major problem. Bilingual and immigration education programs are another example. The key part of this amendment that I think is most objectionable is that it creates an unmonitored windfall to local school districts that would be used for any of a wide range of purposes. There would be no oversight, no accountability as to how any of the funds are spent. The various purposes that we have meticulously specified over the years as priorities for the Nation, those priorities will be put aside. Let me mention one other program, Madam President, that I think is of particular concern as to how it would fare under this amendment, and that is title I. When I talk to elementary schoolteachers and administrators in my State, the one Federal program that they consistently point to and say ``thank you'' for sending the funds to the State and to local districts, it is in this title I area. That is funding for disadvantaged students. It makes a tremendous difference in many of our schools. I think for us to--in an amendment here on the floor, without hearings, without any comprehension of what we are doing--just say we are going to eliminate title I, I think that is highly irresponsible. I believe very strongly that we made a serious mistake when we went that way. So there is no accountability if this amendment prevails. There is no oversight by the Federal Government as to how these funds are spent if this amendment prevails. We would cut State support networks out of the picture, also, if this amendment prevails. The Gorton amendment fully bypasses State educational agencies. In my State, our State educational agencies help to coordinate and monitor programs. Those are all bypassed under the amendment. Some people think that block granting education funds might give local school districts more control or more funding. The reality is that if we block grant these programs and bypass the entire State education network, we put a huge administrative burden on school districts, which very few of them are equipped to handle at this point. About 6 percent of Federal funds is taken off the top by States for administrative and technical expenses. I wish they didn't have to take any expenses off. But I fear that we will see a duplication at the local district level that will soak up substantially more than 6 percent of the total Federal funds if we bypass the networks that the States have set up. In my own State, there is really no way to anticipate the total effect of this amendment. It is untried. Funding levels would basically be determined by having each individual district conduct a self- reported census on its own of all school-age children in the district, weigh the district's funding according to each State's average per capita income level. It is not difficult to guess that we won't do nearly as well in my State as some might think. Current formulas already awarding money directly to the school district based on individual community need would be scrapped and many communities would be left to fend for themselves. Madam President, in summary, let me just say that this amendment should not become law. I am persuaded that if it remains in this bill, the President will veto the bill, as he should. I think this is the kind of irrational, unwise, misguided action which we sometimes get involved in here in the Senate when we don't have active debate. There was not adequate debate on the Gorton amendment. We have not had hearings in the Education Subcommittee of the Labor and Human Resources Committee on the Gorton amendment. If Senator Gorton and other sponsors of this bill want to pursue this course of action, I believe it should be put out as a piece of legislation that we can have hearings on in the authorizing committee. I am fortunate to be a member of the Labor, Health and Human Resources Committee which has worked long and hard over the years to authorize the various Federal programs being eliminated with this amendment. I think the proper course would be to have a full set of hearings on all of these programs, and determine which of them should be eliminated. If the will of the Senate and the will of the Congress and the will of President is to eliminate some of them, then fine. But coming along with this kind of an amendment absent hearings and absent adequate debate I think is not the responsible way to proceed. So I would join others here in objecting strenuously to the provision. As Senator Dodd suggested yesterday on the floor, if the bill comes back from the appropriations conference with this provision in it, he would commit to filibuster against the 1998 appropriations bill. I hope very much that course is not required. But, obviously, I and many others would have to join him in that course of action, if that amendment remains in the legislation. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have Senators Dorgan and Harkin added as cosponsors.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me start by complimenting the Senator from Indiana for the compromise that we have worked out here. I am pleased to cosponsor that compromise amendment with him. I do think the essential point to be made here is that through this amendment, this compromise amendment, we transfer control of the development of voluntary national tests over to this independent governing board that is referring to as NAGB, the National Assessment Governing Board. This is essentially the same approach that was suggested by Secretary Riley and proposed by myself, Senator Dorgan, Senator Harkin, and offered in the amendment 1115 which we offered last week. More important, the amendment will allow the test development process to continue without any undue delay. Let me say a word about what NAGB is, because it would now be the organization or the entity with this responsibility. The governing board that now will oversee the development of these tests is the National Assessment Governing Board. It was established in 1988 by the Congress. It is bipartisan. It is independent. As Senator Coats indicated, it contains Governors, legislators, superintendents--now it will contain some mayors, business people, experts in education as well; and the core responsibility of this group has been to oversee the development and execution of NAEP, the National Assessment for Educational Progress. This test that we are talking about here, which will be available on an individual student basis, is to be an outgrowth of that National Assessment of Educational Progress test, which is well respected and has been for a long time. Let me point to two charts here, and then I know Senator Kennedy wishes to speak, Senator Wellstone and Senator Dorgan. I want to defer to them. Mr. President, how much time remains, and is the time controlled or is it uncontrolled at this point?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleague for this clarification. The 30 Tribal Colleges and Universities in this country provide the best opportunity for many Native Americans to attend college. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching recently published its second report on Native American colleges, pointing out the critical role they play. I believe that the office created under the White House initiative will have an opportunity to work across Federal agencies to strengthen tribal institutions of higher education and can help to implement the recommendations made in the Carnegie Foundation report. I know that my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, shares my concern for the support of tribal colleges and universities, and I would ask for his thoughts on this issue.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me commend the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Indiana for working in bringing this compromise together. I support it. I think it is important to give effective information. It is purely voluntary. It is a step forward. I urge very much that the Senate adopt this with a large margin so that we can stick to this position in conference. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, at this point, now that the modification is pending at the desk, that myself, Senator Dorgan and Senator Harkin be added as cosponsors.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield myself an additional 5 minutes, and then I will divide the remaining 6 minutes among the three Senators I indicated before. Let me first point to this chart which I think makes the case for these tests that the President is talking about and that many of us have supported. At the present time, we have a hodgepodge of tests that have been developed around the country that are given to students and then the results of which are given to parents, and they are told that this is an accurate description of how their child is doing in school. The reality is that some parents and some students are led to believe that they are performing at acceptable levels and are led to believe that the education they are receiving is an appropriate education. They don't find out the reality until they apply to college or get in the workplace and find they do not have the skills or the training they need. This chart shows a comparison between the standards that have been adopted by many States and the standards set by this National Assessment for Education Progress, or NAEP. You can see the dramatic difference. For example, in the case of Wisconsin, 35 percent, according to the National Assessment for Education Progress, which is the standard we are trying to give people information on, 35 percent of their students were performing at acceptable levels. According to the standard used by the State of Wisconsin, 88 percent of the students were performing at acceptable levels. In the case of Louisiana, the disparity is even greater. The State of Louisiana indicated that 88 percent of their students are doing fine. When you look at what the National Assessment for Education Progress given to students in Louisiana indicates, only 15 percent of their students were doing fine. So there is a dramatic disparity there. What we are trying to do is get good objective information to parents throughout the country. This is strictly voluntary. No State needs to use this test. No school district needs to use this test. No individual student needs to take this test. And if parents want to ignore the results of the comparison, they can, but it needs to be available to those who want to use it. This other chart I want to show is a listing of the States that have already chosen to use this voluntary test once it is developed. There are several States listed here: Alaska, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, and West Virginia. There are many other States, including my own, which are thinking seriously about it. They have not taken any formal action to commit themselves to use this test, but they are looking at it and they are very interested. There are 15 school districts in our major urban areas that have indicated they wish to have the advantage of the benefit of taking this test or using it in their schools. All this amendment will do is to allow the development of the test, allow us to go forward with the development of the test so that it will be available to these States and to these school districts to the extent that they choose to use it. I believe this is a very good course to follow. I think this is the right thing to do for our students, it is the right thing to do for the parents of these students so that they can show with some accuracy whether their children are getting the kind of education that they are going to need in later life. I very much support the effort the Senator from Indiana has made here. I hope we can adopt this amendment with a large margin. Mr. President, I defer to the Senator from Massachusetts for a couple of minutes for him to make his statement. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the fiscal year 1998 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill that was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate today contains several education and health provisions that I feel are especially important and have worked hard on to help improve the lives of people in New Mexico and nationwide. The key health and education provisions include a plan to move control over the proposed new math and reading tests to an independent board, increased funding for education technology and technology training for teachers, first-time funding to help low-income students participate in the rigorous and cost saving academic program known as Advanced Placement, and funding for a Boarder Health Commission that I helped enact in 1994. It is especially important to note that the United States Senate today approved $1 million in funding to implement the United States- Mexico Border Health Commission. The Commission, which has long been one of my priorities, is designed to help improve public health along the United States-Mexico border. I requested that the funds be included in the 1998 spending bill in a letter to Senate appropriators earlier in the year. I led the fight to fund the Commission because I believe that we can't wait any longer to begin addressing the serious health problems along the border. They greatly affect people in nearby communities and in New Mexico. What's alarming is that many of these health problems-- such as malaria and tuberculosis--can affect people nationwide. This appropriation represents the first time Federal funds have been earmarked specifically for implementation of the commission. The funds would go to the commission to begin a comprehensive border health needs assessment followed by a coordinated medical response to border health problems. Each United States-border State would receive two federally appointed commissioners who would work with Mexico to design and coordinate programs to improve health, water resources, sewage treatment, vector control and air quality along the border. Because of the Senate's move today, we are inching closer to being able to directing medical help to our ailing border region. The Senate has also now approved funding for several key education initiatives that have been some of my top priorities in this Congress. Perhaps most notable is that the Senate approved $30 million to train teachers in the use of technology in the classroom. The funding will be used to implement the Technology for Teachers Act, new legislation that I authored earlier this year. There is a tremendous effort underway to put computers in classrooms and hook schools across American into the Internet. But until now, the primary focus has been on obtaining equipment--not on training teachers to use it. We can't simply install a computer in the classroom and expect it to revolutionize education all by itself. These new resources represent the first time Federal funds have been set aside specifically for training new and current teachers in the use of education technology. As a founding member of the Senate Education Technology Workforce, I am also proud that the Senate voted to double the funding for the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, created by my 1994 Technology for Education Act. The fund would jump to $425 million in 1998 from $200 million in 1997. New Mexico's State Department of Education this year received $1.7 million from the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, and awarded grants to 26 communities across the State. The 1998 funding would boost New Mexico's share to $3.55 million. And finally, the Senate also approved $3 million in funding to increase the number of low-income students who participate in the rigorous Advanced Placement [AP] program in schools in New Mexico and across the country. I secured this funding in the 1998 Labor-HHS appropriations bill in order to broaden the reach of AP classes to all students--not just to those who attend more affluent schools or have definite plans to attend college. By promoting AP, we're promoting high-standards education in our schools without creating new Federal programs. These are just a few of the most important elements of a bill that on the whole is very strong, I believe. However, I must note one part of the legislation that we are sending into conference with the House of Representatives, which is the Gorton amendment. As part of this spending bill, the Senate narrowly approved--49 to 51--an amendment by Senator Gorton that would convert billions of dollars in critical Federal education dollars into unrestricted block grants that school districts could spend with few restrictions and little accountability. For reasons I would like to describe here, I strongly oppose the amendment and will push for its elimination from the final version of the 1998 Labor-HHS appropriations measure. In essence, this amendment would eliminate much of the U.S. Department of Education--a radical and misguided effort that I had thought was abandoned in the face of tremendous public opposition over the last few years. Specifically, this amendment block grants to local districts--not states--roughly $5.5 billion in annual funding for Federal education programs. The eliminated programs would include: Funding for the new voluntary national tests for reading and math, which would help so many parents keep their schools accountable for preparing their students for a high-tech world; Title 1, the roughly $7 billion program to help poor children improve their reading and math skills in the early grades; The $425 million Technology for Education Act, which is already providing $1.7 million in education technology funding to 26 grantees around the state, and would rise to $3.5 million next year; The $50 million Charter Schools program, which helps foster the creation of more new, independent public schools like the five that are up and running in New Mexico; Goals 2000, which has provided millions of dollars to New Mexico as part of its effort to raise academic standards and achievement; The School-to-Work Opportunities Act, which has given both local and statewide implementation grants to help improve training for students going straight into the workforce from high school; Safe and Drug Free Schools, a program that sends Federal funds to the States and schools most affected by school violence in order to make them more orderly; Teacher training funds called the Eisenhower program that are used in New Mexico to help upgrade the preparation of teachers in our classrooms; and Bilingual and immigrant education programs, which also provide much- needed support for communities with large numbers of limited English proficient students. In effect, this would create an unmonitored windfall for school districts that could be used for nearly any purpose--conceivably even raising administrative salaries, or building swimming pools and tennis courts. There would be no oversight or accountability--in fact, all of the limits on administrative costs and accountability measures that rely on State oversight and are already in Federal law would be eliminated by the amendment. The Gorton amendment would also fully by-pass State education agencies that in New Mexico help coordinate and monitor programs. Some people think block-granting education funds might give local school districts more control or more funding. The reality is that if we block grant these programs and bypass the our entire State education network, we actually put a huge administrative burden on school districts that very few will be able to handle. And in fact, only about 6 percent of Federal funding is taken off the top by States for administrative and technical assistance. It simply isn't cost-efficient for small districts to provide the specialized training or diverse course offerings that can be provided economically at a state and regional level. It's also entirely unclear how New Mexico would fare under such an arrangement--there is no real way of telling from the amendment, which proposes an entirely untried approach that has never really been debated before. Funding levels would basically be determined by having each individual district conduct a self-reported census on its own of all the school-aged children in the district, and then weighting each district's funding according to each State's average per capita income level. However it's not too hard to guess that we won't do nearly as well as some may think, since current formulas already awarding money directly to districts based on individual community need would be scrapped--and many communities would be left to fend for themselves. For these reasons, it is my hope that this ill-conceived amendment will be dropped in conference, and left out of the final bill that is made into law. If necessary, I would likely join my colleague Senator Dodd in filibustering the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill if the Gorton amendment is kept in the final version.